Passionate Love - kickert



Passionate Love

The Faith, Folly and Theology of Peter Abelard

Ben Kickert

December 14, 2007

History tends to remember two kinds of people: the great contributors and the infamous. The twelfth century theologian Peter Abelard[1] certainly could find himself in either category. Victor Murray describes him in the introduction of his book about Abelard as a man with "a two-fold reputation in history, and in each case it is as a rebel."[2] He goes on to say that Abelard's name serves as a symbol of rebellion, but he also serves as perhaps the best known scholar of the Middle Ages. Philosophers and theologians remember Abelard for his contribution of moral influence theory, while church historians remember him for his debates with Anselm over this theology. From a historical and literary standpoint, Abelard was famous for his relationship with Heloise and volume of love letters that relationship produced. This paper will examine the life of Peter Abelard and his theological contributions. The first half of this paper will examine his personal life while the second half will detail his teachings, with a special focus on the soteriological debate between Abelard and Anselm.

Life of Abelard

Abelard was born in France in 1079 and was expected to become a military man. Instead of pursuing a life of arms he chose to take up the "weapons of dialect and philosophy."[3] It quickly became obvious that Abelard wielded these weapons with precision and authority as his skills became famous in the world of academia as both a student and as a teacher. His early life was rather transient as he moved around France teaching and lecturing at various schools. His most notable stop was in Paris, where he originally went to study under William of Champeaux. As became the case with many of his academic connections, his relationship with William ended abruptly after Abelard took exception with William's ultra-realist approach.[4] This schism did not end Abelard's academic career in Paris. In fact, perhaps his greatest contribution to the Parisian scholastic setting was his establishment of a new school near Paris. This school was independent of the cathedral where he spent much of his academic career.[5]

Academically Abelard is remembered as being among the best and brightest scholars of his time. This statement is easier to make when one considers that he studied under many of the finest scholars available.[6] According to Kerr, "His fame as a teacher was unexcelled, and of his many students one became a pope, twenty-five became cardinals, fifty became bishops."[7] One of his major contributions was the eventual acceptance of dialectic among the church's theologians.[8] During his time as teacher and student, the study of dialectics was considered to be a "playground for critical minds" that focused on form over content.[9]

Unfortunately he was not only known for his intelligence, but also for his personality, which many would describe was abrasive and direct - a combination that surely earned him more enemies than friends, although admirers seemed to be in abundance. According to Betty Radice, "Abelard was stimulated by controversy and one can image him bored by finding himself at the top without a rival."[10] As a result, many of his relationships, both professionally and personally did not turn out well. Much of Abelard's life was marked with pain and opposition despite (or some may say because of) his superior intellect and abilities. We learn this not only from the history books, but also from the personal pen of this great theologian in his autobiography known as "History of my Calamities."[11]

A discussion of the personal life of Peter Abelard would be utterly incomplete without including the details of his relationship with a young lady by the name of Heloise who was a student under his care. Radice has considered their relationship to be on par with that of Dante and Beatrice or Romeo and Juliet.[12] While the exchange of communication between these two lovers is often cited as one of the best examples of romantic discourse from this time period, it would be impossible to describe this couple as having a "storybook" relationship. Abelard and Heloise met in Paris when he moved there to teach at the cathedral. Heloise was the niece of one of Abelard's coworkers, a powerful church leader by the name of Fulbert with whom she lived.[13] Abelard had arranged to stay in the household of the family in exchange for providing tutoring services.[14] Their relationship was much more than academic, as their passion for each other led to risky and flagrantly sexually behavior.[15] She quickly became pregnant with his child whom they named Astralabe.[16] As could be expected, the complexities of their relationship led to obvious tensions - tensions which were felt by Heloise's uncle, who pressure Abelard and Heloise to marry, which they did in secret. The covenant of marriage was not a fix to the relationship and some could argue only added to the difficulties between these two passionate lovers.

The true tragedy of their relationship came later after Heloise publically denied their marriage. This was not a decision she took lightly, but rather should be seen as indicative of the complexities of their relationship with her motivation lying in her desire for her husband to excel in his academic work.[17] As they both struggled with the status of their relationship, Heloise was vested as a nun in the monestary at Argenteuil where she became trained in theological and practical matters. Despite the commitment to a monastic life by Heloise, Abelard continued to visit her and they continued to engage in sexual intercourse.[18] This mired relationship sent her uncle into an uproar. He was so enraged, because he thought the young scholar had dishonored his niece, that he sent a group of men to attack him. At the orders of Heloise's uncle the men castrated Abelard in his room. After such a brutal attack, Abelard forced Heloise to remain in the convent while he himself entered a monestary.[19]

The tensions resulting from Abelard's relationship with Heloise were not an exceptional part of his life, but rather is a striking example of a life of relationship struggles. He was a man of passions that was not easily deterred. This was not only evident in his personal life, but in his academic life as well. He was known for pushing the limits and being willing to front new ideas in the face of commonly accepted suppositions. He was repeatedly accused of being a heretic, but that did not stop him from advancing highly influential works that challenged that status quo. As we shall see, it was Abelard's view of salvation that earned him much criticism, but this was not the first time he found himself at odds with other church leaders. In 1121, Abelard's book on the trinity was condemned at the Council of Soissons as a result of the critique of some of his rivals and he was forced to burn his own writings.[20] Later in his life, it was his confrontations with Bernard of Clairvaux that became noteworthy. Bernard accused Abelard of heresy, and particularly criticized Abelard's views of the trinity, as well as attacking his "doctrinal innovations."[21] Bernard was partly responsible for Abelard's condemnation by the church which culminated in the Council of Sens in 1141.[22] Facing charges of heresy, Abelard appealed his case to the pope, but before he could get a hearing he fell ill and eventually died in the midst of the controversy.[23]

Teachings of Abelard

Abelard's debate with Anselm over the work of Jesus and the cross is the most famous of his teachings. While this is important and will be addressed in the final section of this paper, one would be remiss to think that these theological discussions were the sum of Abelard's work. His contributions were significant, and like most of his life, often controversial. The twelfth century fostered a move within Christian thought toward scholasticism. This combining of academics and theology allowed for new theological debates and methods. It can convincingly be argued that Peter Abelard deserves some credit for this transition. Even when Abelard was not presenting original material, he still managed to ruffle feathers as is evident with a theological compilation he developed entitled "Sec et Non" which translates as "Yes and No." This book looked at 158 theological issues from the perspective of numerous authorities and a variety of biblical texts and showed the contradiction which was inherent. It was his method to point out contradictions without trying to resolve the tension. His purpose was not to cause problems or to challenge a person's faith, instead, he desired to bring these issues to a point of reconciliation. By doing this he hoped to encourage his students to think more critically. Abelard was not trying to come up with a way where everyone could be "right," rather he desired a deeper form of reconciliation that was based on love and not argument.[24] If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, Abelard was not lacking. It can be argued that even Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of all time, imitated this dialectic with his question-and-answer device.[25]

This acceptance of the tension of contradiction not only frustrated his peers, but also serves as a window into the thought process of Abelard. We can learn a lot about his approach to knowledge and truth by reading the opening lines of Sec et Non:

When, in such a quantity of words, some of the writings of the saints seem not only to differ from, but even to contradict, each other, one should not rashly pass judgment concerning those by whom the world itself is to be judged, as it is written: "The saints shall judge nations" (cf. Wisdom 3: 7-8), and again "You also shall sit as judging" (cf. Matthew 19:28). Let us not presume to declare them liars or condemn them as mistaken – those people of whom the Lord said "He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Thus with our weakness in mind, let us believe that we lack felicity in understanding rather than that they lack felicity in writing –- those of whom the Truth Himself said: "For it is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you" (Matthew 10:20). So, since the Spirit through which these things were written and spoken and revealed to the writers is itself absent from us, why should it be surprising if we should also lack an understanding of these same things?[26]

As is illustrated here, Abelard was comfortable with arguments that did not logically agree. This ability to let things rest in conflict could certainly be a factor in the soteriologically debates which followed.

Anselm and Abelard

In the great Christological and soteriologically debates of the twelfth century it has been Anselm's contributions that have largely prevailed as the definitive theology of the church.[27] This is certainly the case if one considers the modern evangelical movements of the past century. Perhaps it is less helpful to try and declare a winner in these conversations than it is to glean from each. This is possibly where the principles of Sec et Non can be put to the test and employed. It should be understood, even before broaching the subject of the work of Christ, that Anselm and Abelard were not merely contemporaries and theological opponents; Abelard actually sought out Anselm to learn from him.[28] As could be expected from a driven and opinionated man like Abelard, he quickly butted heads with Anselm and moved on his own to teach in other settings.

Before the specifics of Christology come into the mix, it becomes obvious that Anselm and Abelard approach the issues from different perspectives. It has already been shown that Abelard was comfortable with contradiction and the unknown in his theology. By contrast we find that Anselm based his approach around the concept of fides quaerens intellectum, or "faith seeking understanding." [29] With that as the matrix for his work, Anselm constructed an extensive logical argument concerning the work and nature of Christ and his death on the cross. This can be found in his writing entitled "Why God Became Man."[30] In this piece, Anselm stages a fictional conversation with a man named Boso. The conversation is on the nature of God and the nature of humanity and the relationship between the two. The basic premise of the conversation is based on the assumptions that no unfitting attributes are placed on God and that reason should always prevail; that is to say the most logical solution will be accepted. From those presuppositions, he constructs the argument that humanity is in need of restoration for their sins, yet there is nothing humanity can offer in exchange for their sins. On the other hand, God cannot forgive sins without some form of retribution for that would create a situation where sin triumphed. The only way the sins of humanity could be forgiven is if there was an appropriate sacrifice, which could only come in the form of the God-man Jesus dying a death after living a perfect life. This theological motif has come to be known as substitutionary atonement - that is to say the work of Christ has been substituted in the place of humanity for humanity can not do atoning work on its own.[31]

While Anselm's theory of atonement has been clearly laid out, no such unified work can be found on Abelard's thoughts concerning the work of Christ. Richard Weingart has gone to great lengths to pull together various sources to illustrate the overarching theme of Abelard's soteriology. He has summed this up into a concept he calls "divine love."[32] According to Weingart, salvation lies entirely in the ability and nature of God - a concept he refers to as theocentricity. The divine love of God is the only motivation for the incarnation, which means Jesus came because of the love of God. If then the incarnation is the ultimate expression of God's love, the passion and death of Jesus serves as the epitomic example of the self-sacrificial love God possess, offers, and calls his followers too. In this way, humanity knows and experiences divine love through their knowledge and interaction with Christ and his life and death. In the end, this soteriology puts much of the onus back on humanity as each of us are called to respond and mirror the divine love we see in Christ.[33] This theology has also been called "moral influence theory" because Abelard does not focus on the need for some cosmic transaction on behalf of humanity that must be righted in the eyes of God, but rather addresses the role the incarnation plays in influencing the behavior of individuals through the exposure of the ultimate manifestation of God's love: Jesus. This can be understood as a more personal and subjective view of God's work through Christ rather than a legalistic and objective view.[34]

When assessing Abelard and Anselm's Christological and soteriological debate in view of Christian orthodoxy and biblical accuracy, it is not a matter of one or the other; rather, it should be affirmed that both positions offer truth and provide insights into the life and death of Jesus. Anselm's view of substitutionary atonement is helpful when one considers the Judaic roots from which Jesus emerged. While key texts like Micah 6 prove a more exhaustive understanding of sacrifice, it is obvious throughout the texts of the Old Testament, especially the Pentatuach, that atonement through sacrifice is necessary. This philosophy is found extended in later Christian writings, most notably the book of Hebrews, wherein Christ is portrayed as being the ultimate sacrifice. In evaluating the concept of substitutionary atonement it is difficult to claim that the death of Jesus was not sacrificial. The more difficult question lies in the exact nature of that sacrifice. The first hang up in Anselm's argument is the status of those who followed God before the incarnation. Scripture seems to be clear that despite the fact that the nation of Israel repeatedly turned to sin and could not save herself, individuals before the cross were still able to be reconciled to God. The second major obstacle to Anselm's substitutionary atonement theory is the question of who is covered by the work of the cross. It is obvious from his writings that Anselm was not a universalist, but at the same time if the argument is made that the cross was to serve as the atoning act for humanity, it is hard to discern who is ultimately atoned for. Additionally, the entire argument is constructed around the belief that the primary barrier to reconciliation between humanity and God is the need for the remission of sins.[35] While it can certainly be affirmed that sin affects our relationship with God, biblical history shows that God can be reconciled with humanity before atonement is made. The exodus story is a perfect example of this, as is the story of Hosea and Gomer. In both these cases God pursued, accepted, and saved people before their sins were atoned for. These issues seem to arise from a flawed point of logic early on in Anselm's argument wherein he assumes that the nature of God can be assessed and known by humanity.[36]

Abelard's theology is much more difficult to pick apart because it is not nearly as structured as Anselm's views. The concept of substitutionary atonement is setup in a way that lends itself nicely to proof-texting and debate. While not as easy to pull specific verse out, Abelard's concept of divine love is much more in touch with the overarching narrative of scripture and the themes which are found in the bible. That is to say Abelard's soteriology is more holistic and abstract wherein Anselm's offerings are more legalistic and specific. The concept of divine love is more rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, specifically what is found in the gospels, while substitutionary atonement can be support more easily in the later Christian epistles and various places in the Old Testament.

The strength of Abelard's arguments lies in the application to Christian life. Once it is confirmed that the death of Jesus was sacrificial and that humanity does have a sin problem that impedes (but not necessarily prevent) a relationship with God, the question of application and orthopraxis becomes essential. In this manner, the life and teachings of Christ are indispensable for Christians to model and be motivated by. When we understand the concept of divine love it gives a new importance to the manner in which Christ lived and thus serves as a stronger call for emulation. If the death of Christ was all that mattered, modeling his life would be less important. Abelard's theology correctly emphasizes the importance of the incarnation and makes humanity's relationship with God about something more than just a cosmic transaction with sin; it becomes the expression and reality of God showing his love by living with us and dying for us - an act that should spur all us on toward right living.

Conclusion

A study of the life and teachings of Peter Abelard is a messy endeavor. In many ways it is a study of a life of contradictions that requires the researcher to buy into the philosophy of Sec et Non and allow some tensions to stand without needing to choose one or the other. It is easy to allow the complexities of his relationships and conflicts to cloud the overall picture of his contribution. Some may look at his relationship with Heloise and refuse to see past the "sin" of their situation. However, to others the reality of a complicated life only adds validity to the person and teaching of Abelard. In the end, it is telling that a man such as Abelard who experienced the extreme joys of life as well as extreme pain still put all of his focus on the love of God and the need to emulate that love. History may remember Abelard as the loser in the twelfth century soteriologically debate, but his contributions and perspectives offer insights the church today would be well advised to grapple with.

Bibliography

Abelard, Peter. "History of my Calamities."

—. Medieval Sourcebook: Peter Abelard: Prologue to Sic et Non. (accessed December 10, 2007).

Anselm. "Why God Became Man." Readings in Christian Thought. Edited by Hugh T. Kerr. Nashville: Abington Press, 1990.

Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1: Aachen-Assize | Christian Classics Ethereal Library. (accessed December 10, 2007).

Chenu, M.-D. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Eassays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Dronke, Peter. Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies: The twenty-sixth W. P. Ker Memorial Lecture delivered in the University of Glasgow 29th October, 1976. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press, 1976.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. I. New York: HarperCollins, 1984.

Harrington, Joel F. A Cloud of Witnesses: Readings in the History of Western Christianity. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.

Irvin, Dale T, and Scott W Sunqueist. History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. I. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006.

Kerr, Hugh T. Readings in Christian Thought. 2nd Edition. Nashville: Abington, 1990.

Murray, A. Victor. Abelard and St Bernard: A Study in Twelfth Century 'Modernism'. New York: Manchester University Press, 1967.

Radice, Betty. The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Weingart, Richard E. The Logic of Divine Love: A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abailard. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

-----------------------

[1] Also known as Petrus Abealardus, Pierre Abélard or Abailard. For this paper, the name Peter Abelard will be used unless it is quoted in a source which differs.

[2] Murray, A. Victor. Abelard and St Bernard: A Study in Twelfth Century 'Modernism'. New York: Manchester University Press, 1967. 3.

[3] Radice, Betty. The Letters of Abelard and Heloise. London: Penguin Books, 2003. xii.

[4] Murray, 10-11

[5] Kerr, Hugh T. Readings in Christian Thought. 2nd Edition. Nashville: Abington, 1990. 93.

[6] Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. I. New York: HarperCollins, 1984. 314.

[7] Kerr, 93.

[8] Harrington, Joel F. A Cloud of Witnesses: Readings in the History of Western Christianity. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.145.

[9] Murray, 9.

[10] Radice xviii.

[11] Abelard, Peter. "History of my Calamities."

[12] Ibid., xii.

[13] Harrington, 145

[14] Irvin, Dale T, and Scott W Sunqueist. History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. I. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006.427.

[15] Radice, xix.

[16] Ibid., x.

[17] Ibid., xxi.

[18] Ibid., i.

[19] Irvin, 427.

[20] Harrington, 145.

[21] Kerr, 94.

[22] Murray, 35-46.

[23] Radice, xlii-xliii

[24] Gonzalez, 314.

[25] Kerr, 94.

[26] Abelard, Peter. Medieval Sourcebook: Peter Abelard: Prologue to Sic et Non. (accessed December 10, 2007).

[27] Kerr, 94.

[28] Radice, xvii

[29] Irvin, 426.

[30] Anselm. "Why God Became Man." Readings in Christian Thought. Edited by Hugh T. Kerr. Nashville: Abington Press, 1990.85-93.

[31] Irvin, 426.

[32] Weingart, Richard E. The Logic of Divine Love: A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abailard. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

[33] Ibid., 201-206.

[34] Kerr, 94.

[35] Anselm, 86.

[36] Ibid.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download